Lower your pitchforks ladies and gents. I created this thread because I am a little puzzled by the positions taken by several prominent atheists such as Lawrence Krauss. This position is that you cannot prove the non-existence of something. The problem with this position is that it leads to...

Krauss: you cannot prove the non-existence of something

Christian: therefore there is a possibility that a god exists!

Krauss: the likelihood of god existing is equivalent to having a magical floating teapot orbiting the earth

Christian: but that means there is a chance he exists! Scientists can't deny that

Krauss: it is impossible to prove something does not exist

Christian: this means god exists. He will overcome all obstacles and once you willingly accept him, he will be your saviour too. (goes to church and tells his friends that a scientist could not disprove god)

Seriously, I see so many debaters weakening their argument with statements like that. If the chance of god existing is 0.000000000000000000000001%, just say that he doesn't exist. They make it seem as if Einstein would turn over in his grave if they utter those words. They also make it seem as if they are speaking to scientists all the time.

I feel like this position has somewhat split the atheist community apart by creating 'weak' atheists and 'strong' atheists. It is such a tiny nitty detail but it gives so much ammo to the opposing side. Atheists, what do you think?

I would claim that god doesn't exist because there's no evidence for one. You might say "but a painting requires an artist", yet this argument brings up the question of "who created god?".

Fine there's a minuscule chance that god exists, around the probability of us living in the matrix, or there being a flying spaghetti monster. So what if there's a chance that god exists? That doesn't lend you any more credibility than a crazy homeless man ranting that he was anal probed by aliens.

Let me ask you a question blackchilli. I was raised without religion, I didn't even understand what religion was despite celebrating christmas and easter as a child. I came out as a non-religious in the end. Were you bought up as a Christian? Don't you think that being raised in a Christian household had something to do with what you believe in as an adult, and if you were raised in a household that worshiped a different religion, then that's what you would believe in? Our child brains mold into what we are taught.

I'm not quoting to make a strawman, I'm quoting what I find central to answering your question.


I'm an atheist. I do not belong to an atheist community. Whereas I might find an atheists reasoning dumb or stupid, how he reaches the conclusions of his atheism is irrelevant towards him being an atheist. An atheist might not believe god exists because his dog told him so. He is still an atheist and he is not violating some central tenet, doctrine or dogma that is necessary to follow in order to be an atheist.

Personally I have no problems stating God does not exist, I find it problematic to state god does not exist. This to me is unproblematic. Why should I give unknowns value?

The conclusion doesn't follow the premise

It is not impossible to prove that something does not exist.

There's an argument that there's flaw in some weak atheists epistemology that lead them not to outright deny the existence of God because it can't be proven.

I'm in danger of misrepresenting other people position here but to clarify. If you are sure there is no god but you accept that you are unable to prove there is no God then it seems some are refraining from denying the existence of God where they would deny the existence of other things they had a similar lack of confidence in.

It almost seems that to swerve theist complaints that a strong atheist position relies on the denial of something we can't know that weaker atheism cedes this

The problem is that the term God is not well defined.

Its not just saying that 'you can not prove something does not exist'. But rather 'you can not prove something that has not been defined yet does not exist.'.

So if someone asks what is the chance that God exists. You then need to question them fully about what they mean by God. Details are important. Every extra property they give their god reduces the chance of it existing by orders of magnitude.

But I guess you have to accept that you really cannot be certain that details from any fantasy might not be real.

False. Plenty of examples in mathematics, for instance it's provable that there does not exist a set of all sets.

But you can't prove the existence or non-existence of God.

It is impossible to prove Green Unicorns don't exist. This means they exist! (Logical fallacies 101)
How does admitting a .000...1% chance of being wrong weaken one's position?

Also, I don't really know what you're talking about, most atheists I know "claim God does not exist", in other words they're atheist...

Do you mean claim with 100% certainty? Well that's impossible because no one can be certain. To claim certainty without possessing it is to be an idiot.

To which the answer is 'no one, he's god'. Checkmate theists. Boom headshot.

You can't have an infinite regression apparently so there must have been a first cause, an uncaused cause, and that's what we'll refer to as god.

Besides, to the theist, the evidence of the existence of god is overwhelming, or they wouldn't believe. Pascal's wager may be persuasive but I seriously doubt any theists believe simply because it could be true.

There are probably enough people in the US now (although an exact threshold for when a belief passes from delusion to culturally accepted hasn't been established here) that claim to have been anally probed that it's no longer considered delusional. Ironic.

It is if it's god. But if you have an argument to prove that god doesn't exist I'd love to hear it. In any case, we both know that the OP is a version of the argument from ignorance.

I agree. It is not possible to prove that God does not exist. I was simply correcting an error in a logical sequence. If you create a logical sequence with an error in it, it can lead to an erroneous endpoint.

The OP was absolutely correct in asserting that debaters weaken their argument by including incorrect statements.

I'd echo definitions are key.

I'm 99.9E sure that God as commonly defined by the various organized religions does not exist.

I do think there's a non-zero chance that the universe as we currently understand it (big bang onward) was created by a being that to our perception would be god-like, but in reality is probably just a being far advanced from us. I'd liken it to your pet goldfish and you. To the goldfish, you are god. You decide if he lives or dies, etc. To you it's just a goldfish. You feed it, but you don't listen to it's prayers, etc. You aren't god, and neither is whatever created the universe (if that's the way it happened).

I agree with some of the commentary itt around the probability of God. The more detail you put into the description, the lower the probability that the description is correct. But I do disagree with the specifics.

In my view the concept of God exists independent of religion. I see religion as a human response to an inspiration that is broadly perceived. That the human response is variable and strongly influenced by culture, wishful thinking, bad intent, etc. is just par for the course of human endeavor.

The starting point is of course 50/50. There either is a God or there is not. That is with no detail or information on the question. If you cannot see how the starting point is 50/50, I suggest you keep thinking about it until you do. A binary question with no information and a unit total probability is by definition 50/50.

It is possible to lower that somewhat by the argument that if there was a God then it might have been a God who specifically reveals himself in a verifiable physical way on an ongoing basis. That clearly is not the case. What is difficult is to determine how much that lowers the probability. If there are plausible reasons why God might choose not to reveal Himself, then the probability lowering may not be that large. In any event, the extremely low probabilities of the existence of God thrown around by many atheists are completely unsustainable by any logical process.

move thread to BBV

One can apply Bayesian probability to your 50/50 prior and end up with an extremely low posterior probability that God exists. What you need to do (and never have) is give examples of facts about the world that have a higher probability on the hypothesis that God exists than on the hypothesis that God does not exist. For example, you make a big deal about how prayers being (empirically) unanswered isn't "logically impossible" on the assumption of theism, but you ignore the obvious fact that unanswered prayers have a (close to) 100% probability on the assumption of atheism while a obviously lower (though possibly inscrutable) probability on the assumption of theism.

This is a fair point, but detectable prayer effects would fall into the category of physically verifiable revelation which I already conceded as a probability lowering argument. You also seem to agree that the probability is inscrutable, so I am possibly unclear as to how your post constitutes disagreement with mine.

I would claim the same. Maybe you've not seen my other posts but I'm an atheist as well.

Raised a Muslim, became a Christian and then I became an atheist at 12-13 through my own decisions.

Elaborate please. Why do you find it problematic to state god does not exist? Pretend I'm a theist.

Yes, exactly. That is the problem. Krauss/You/Any atheist, is discussing the issue with someone who does not understand simple logic. YET the atheists continue to press on a completely irrelevant point that they cannot prove god does not exist.

The standard reply to that would be "lol scientists can't prove god doesn't exist. I could be right. Boom headshot."

This is pretty much what I mean except you said it much better.

It does not matter. The Christian would say "you as a scientist cannot prove god does not exist. Therefore I am not wrong for believing in one."

From a Christian's perspective
100% certainty = a scientist told me that god does not exist
99.9999999999% = a scientist told me that god does not exist, but he could be wrong.

That is what I mean. You are treating theists as rational people who understand the true meaning of 100% certainty.

By trying to correctly explain that a scientist can only be 99.99999999% right, you are undermining your position because.... there is a tiny chance you could be wrong. Theists will jump all over this.

That is how they see it probably.

This is the problem that many people don't seem to see. A theist thinks evidence is overwhelming. From their perspective Richard Dawkins says he's 6.9 of 7 that god does not exist. Therefore Richard Dawkins could be wrong and he is BELIEVING that god does not exist. A believer in something has no right to tell me what to believe in. I will therefore continue to believe in Jesus.

After all, the fancy schmancy scientists are not 100% sure. They could be wrong so I (I'm pretending to be a theist) could be right.

I should have made this a bit clearer. I think most people assumed I was a theist.

There really is nothing to elaborate. You seem to think this is very complicated, or rather - you seem to want this to be very complicated. It isn't.

Consider this: I can't say if zybbzt exists or not either. This isn't complicated. It is actually completely unproblematic and of no consequence.

Tame the issue with not claiming 100% certainty is that it leads to things like this.

"Speaking at a debate at Oxford University with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the man regarded as the world's most famous atheist admits that he cannot be certain that God does not exist."

"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator. Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs."

A religious person will read this article on the telegraph and think that Dawkins is unsure of himself. This little loophole is created just because Prof Dawkins wants to be 'scientifically' right.

The prayer thing is not a big deal. Except for certain religion's god. What is a big deal is that almost all of the amazing things people point to as proof of a god can now be shown to be the result of simple logic, fractal geometry etc. Bubbles, mountains, snail shells, whatever. On the other hand we still have no explanation for the big bang, quantum weirdness and human consciousness. So a god who decided to create only these three things and let the chips fall where they may has increased in probability for the time being.

I have to blunt here: So? Truths, or rather what we consider truths, should not be chosen because they are comfortable.

Falling off tall cliffs hurts and is likely deadly or crippling. It doesn't matter what would be nice or what would be a more popular alternative. That's not the criteria on which we should judge falling of tall cliffs. Likewise what makes someone look good is not the criteria they should base a statement regarding god's existence on.

Not sure if i'm speaking out of turn here or whatever, but how many theists you know define their stance in relation to what dawkins (or any other "science person") says? you make it sound like they only believe because a prominent celebrity atheist gave them that 0.01% scientific "probability" that god exists and they slotted right in. i'm pretty sure most theists don't give a f*ck and would believe even if dawkins (etc.) vanished in a puff of smoke tomorrow.

your posts aren't making loads of sense, unless i'm missing something obvious. are you young?

I think what he means is that out of 70 possible worlds identical to our own, 'God exists' is true in one of them. So his belief reflects the improbability (69:1) that our world is that one.

Would atheists also say they are not 100% sure Zeus doesn't exist? Or any Norse deities? Or Egyptian ones? Why is the question always only about the Christian god?